Katy Hodkinson v The Registrar for Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal is brought pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act") and relates to a Decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 16 April 2025 ("the Decision") to refuse a third trainee licence. It was listed to be heard by CVP on 20 October 2025 at 12 noon.

The Registrar, as well as opposing it, has applied for it to be struck out by rule 8(3)(c) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 ("2009 Rules").

A person may only provide paid driving instruction if their name is on the Register (section 123(1) of the Act) or if they hold a licence by section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005 ("the 2005 Regs").

To qualify as an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI") an applicant is required to pass a Qualifying Examination. This is in 3 parts namely part 1 being a written examination, the driving ability and fitness test in part 2 and the instructional ability and fitness test in part 3. Three attempts are allowed at each part. The whole examination (parts 1-3 inclusive) must be completed within two years of passing part 1. If this is not done then the whole examination has to be retaken.

A Section 129(1) licence may be granted by the Registrar once an applicant has passed part 2. This is granted:-

By section 129(3) of the Act "The Registrar may refuse to grant a licence under this section to an applicant to whom such a licence has previously been issued."

Reg 14 of the 2005 Regs states:-

Having passed part 2 the Appellant was issued with two 6 month licences. The Appellant then requested a 3rd licence. On 19 March 2025 the Registrar told the Appellant that he was considering refusal of this application about which on 31 March 2025 the Appellant made representations. On 16 April 2025 the Registrar wrote to the Appellant and said that the application for a 3rd trainee licence was refused. This appeal is from that Decision. The Registrar provided a short response dated 7 May 2025 and the appeal was listed to be heard on 20 October 2025 at 12 noon.

The Registrar says that on 7 October 2025 the Appellant failed part 3 for a 3rd time and on 8 October 2025 made an application (copied to the Appellant) seeking the striking out of the appeal by rule 8(3)(c) 2009 Rules on the basis of this 3rd failed attempt and reg 14(b) of the 2005 Regs.

Rule 8(3)(c) 2009 Rules provides that "The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if—(c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding."

Rule 8(4) provides that:-

On 13 October 2025 Directions were given to afford the Appellant an appropriate opportunity to make representation on the strike out request as required by rule 8(4) 2009 Rules and for this application to be considered as a preliminary issue at the appeal hearing on 20 October 2025. At the start of the CVP hearing the clerk confirmed that no representations had been received. There was also no attendance by either party.

The Appellant has failed the 3rd attempt at the instructional ability test. Having considered the above (in particular reg 14(b) of the 2005 Regs) and rule 2 2009 Rules in my view there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant's casesucceeding.